^^^Except the Democrats used it after literally years of appointments sitting unfilled and agency functions being ground to a halt due to GOP obstructionism. Republicans did it the first chance they got for purely political reasons. In any case, all this means is the SCOTUS filibuster never really existed in practical terms, just a theoretical construct waiting for a moment like this to be disposed of.

^I take your point into consideration but I think back to the fact that the Constitution wasn't written to force people to make decisions. In other words, people stonewalling or holding back on allowing nominations to go through is absolutely stupid but if the founders (I'm presuming here, forgive my ignorance) thought it was a bad thing, I feel like they would have put a mechanism in place.

All that I know indicates that they intended for government to only move forward when most people were united and to ground to a complete halt when there was tremendous division. Let the people deal with it and if the division gets nothing done and pisses enough voters off, new people will be voted in who can theoretically work together.

One caveat though - I don't think they realized what the party in power during a census would do for congressional redistricting. I can't believe they didn't assign that task to the judicial branch.

Lmao at you hacks calling Scalia an activist. It isn't activism when you are trying to prevent change...

Quote :

"Biggest mistake in American Politics was adhering so strictly to the two party mindset"

It's inevitable so long as there is a perpetual individual/capitalist vs collectivist/socialist battle going on in our country. It's a slow inevitable decline from capitalist prosperity into socialist hell, but thankfully our founding fathers put rules in place to slow down you people.

Quote :

"Well, it turns out our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. - Obama"

Just imagine if Senate Republicans followed an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution and were forced to give "advice and consent" on Merrick Garland, instead of never meeting with him and never giving him a hearing or vote.

What a surprise! Another leftist hack that can't comprehend how the constitution works.

The senate isn't "forced" to do anything. The POTUS "shall" nominate... the Senate provides advice and consent. Meaning if America votes republican, you leftist don't get to put another activist judge in place to turn our country into a socialist hell hole.

The court has lost credibility so long as Gorsuch is a justice. The rightful nominee was Merrick Garland. It is a stolen seat. I know the "Biden Rule" is cited as justification but that is complete bullshit. It was a statement and not part of official procedure or an actual rule. Even if it was, the campaign didn't really start until the nominees of each party were selected some 6 months after Garland being nominated. Obama had almost a year left in his term and had every right to have his choice voted on. McConnell can go fuck himself and it is clear that if Trump has to fill a vacancy with the same time frame left in his term, there will be no delay until after the election (if the GOP still has the majority).

Yea, this one is clear to me. The state has a blanket ban on funding religious institutions. That has been ruled constitutional before, and I happen to think it's a pretty solid policy actually.

The church claims that prohibition on funding is somehow against their 1st amendment rights to practice religion or perhaps that its discriminating against them based on their religion.

Seems like a big stretch, but the fact that SCOTUS even decided to hear this case after lower courts ruled against the church multiple times suggests atleast a few of the justices think the Church's claims have merit. It'll be an interesting one to see where Gorsuch falls.